This isn't even limited to non-political fiction. It's happening to progressive (for the time) fiction too. We're seeing a similar issue with the AMC Interview with the Vampire tv show adaptation. The plot has been largely rewritten aside from a couple of plot points. Why even buy the rights if the IP isn't actually being used?!

Louis was made black and changed to a 1900s brothel owner, because somehow keeping women in sex slavery is more palatable to modern audiences than a 1700s plantation owner. It's still human trafficking, fuck you misogynistic liberals!

Anyway, Louis being racebent to a child of the plantation actually sounds like a nifty way to add a minority POV without overturning the original story. Considering Rice's progressive political views before her death, I wouldn't be surprised if that would be one of the few changes she'd accept. Sympathetic white slave owners just won't fly in today's media environment.

But all the other changes are just arbitrary and unnecessary. Who is this for? It's definitely not for the fans.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 23, 2022, 08:13:24 PM
This isn't even limited to non-political fiction. It's happening to progressive (for the time) fiction too. We're seeing a similar issue with the AMC Interview with the Vampire tv show adaptation. The plot has been largely rewritten aside from a couple of plot points. Why even buy the rights if the IP isn't actually being used?!

Louis was made black and changed to a 1900s brothel owner, because somehow keeping women in sex slavery is more palatable to modern audiences than a 1700s plantation owner. It's still human trafficking, fuck you misogynistic liberals!

Anyway, Louis being racebent to a child of the plantation actually sounds like a nifty way to add a minority POV without overturning the original story. Considering Rice's progressive political views before her death, I wouldn't be surprised if that would be one of the few changes she'd accept. Sympathetic white slave owners just won't fly in today's media environment.

But all the other changes are just arbitrary and unnecessary. Who is this for? It's definitely not for the fans.

  Wait a minute....Sympathetic white slave owners are out, but literal monsters that murder people and drain their blood are ok as sympathetic characters?  Don't get me wrong, I have no desire to rehab a slaver, but I just never got the whole vampire-hero fiction.  They are murdering blood suckers.   But the red flag is being a slave owner in the 1700's?  I should add, I do not care if they make Louis a child from the plantation, but he will still be a murderous blood sucker....right?

Quote from: Zirunel on February 23, 2022, 08:08:50 PM

Quote from: Persimmon on February 23, 2022, 07:43:34 PM
The thing with the Hobbit films is that if you pared away the extra stuff that wasn't in the book you could have had two decent films.  And even with all their problems, you never get the impression that Jackson disrespected the lore.  He just got caught up in cramming everything he could in there, embellishing some stuff, getting enamored with CGI and chase scenes, and unnecessary "fan service."  So yeah, when you add all that up it got pretty bad, but most of the changes had at least some basis in the lore rather than being based on virtue signalling and tokenism.

I dunno. I can't argue with you because I've never seen any of the Hobbit films. I kinda refused to, on principle.

I was sort of looking forward to the Hobbit movie, since the original  book that I first read in, what, 1968, seemed purpose-written for a neat self-contained 2 hour movie. Perfect to pace, nice beginning, middle and end, something I could see with my daughter,  knowing she wouldn't be drenched in a bunch of tedious pointless friggin "lore."

But no, friggin Peter Jackson and his friggin bucks demanded that it be a multi-movie epic drenched in irrelevant crap. So, never went. Don't plan to.

Remember, he wasn't originally supposed to direct.  It was supposed to be Guillermo del Toro, who was just going to do two movies.  But, for various reasons, del Toro quit and Jackson took over and they decided to stretch it into three movies.  It's also reported that the third movie was originally going to be a "bridge" to LOTR with all the extra stuff from the appendices, but then Jackson changed his mind and they put that stuff back into the other movies as well.

So, alas, we might have had something much better.  But I still think it will prove to be light years ahead of what Amazon does.

Quote from: Persimmon on February 23, 2022, 08:22:37 PM

Quote from: Zirunel on February 23, 2022, 08:08:50 PM

Quote from: Persimmon on February 23, 2022, 07:43:34 PM
The thing with the Hobbit films is that if you pared away the extra stuff that wasn't in the book you could have had two decent films.  And even with all their problems, you never get the impression that Jackson disrespected the lore.  He just got caught up in cramming everything he could in there, embellishing some stuff, getting enamored with CGI and chase scenes, and unnecessary "fan service."  So yeah, when you add all that up it got pretty bad, but most of the changes had at least some basis in the lore rather than being based on virtue signalling and tokenism.

I dunno. I can't argue with you because I've never seen any of the Hobbit films. I kinda refused to, on principle.

I was sort of looking forward to the Hobbit movie, since the original  book that I first read in, what, 1968, seemed purpose-written for a neat self-contained 2 hour movie. Perfect to pace, nice beginning, middle and end, something I could see with my daughter,  knowing she wouldn't be drenched in a bunch of tedious pointless friggin "lore."

But no, friggin Peter Jackson and his friggin bucks demanded that it be a multi-movie epic drenched in irrelevant crap. So, never went. Don't plan to.

Remember, he wasn't originally supposed to direct.  It was supposed to be Guillermo del Toro, who was just going to do two movies.  But, for various reasons, del Toro quit and Jackson took over and they decided to stretch it into three movies.  It's also reported that the third movie was originally going to be a "bridge" to LOTR with all the extra stuff from the appendices, but then Jackson changed his mind and they put that stuff back into the other movies as well.

So, alas, we might have had something much better.  But I still think it will prove to be light years ahead of what Amazon does.

Two movies? Would that have been better? It's still one movie too many. The book stood on its own, for what 15 years before even LOTR was published, let alone the later hooh-ha. No "lore" needed. Alluded to, sure, but not needed. In fact, better for only being alluded to. In my opinion, a missed opportunity to make one great movie instead of three (or two) tedious ones.

Quote from: Zirunel on February 23, 2022, 08:35:20 PM

Quote from: Persimmon on February 23, 2022, 08:22:37 PM

Quote from: Zirunel on February 23, 2022, 08:08:50 PM

Quote from: Persimmon on February 23, 2022, 07:43:34 PM
The thing with the Hobbit films is that if you pared away the extra stuff that wasn't in the book you could have had two decent films.  And even with all their problems, you never get the impression that Jackson disrespected the lore.  He just got caught up in cramming everything he could in there, embellishing some stuff, getting enamored with CGI and chase scenes, and unnecessary "fan service."  So yeah, when you add all that up it got pretty bad, but most of the changes had at least some basis in the lore rather than being based on virtue signalling and tokenism.

I dunno. I can't argue with you because I've never seen any of the Hobbit films. I kinda refused to, on principle.

I was sort of looking forward to the Hobbit movie, since the original  book that I first read in, what, 1968, seemed purpose-written for a neat self-contained 2 hour movie. Perfect to pace, nice beginning, middle and end, something I could see with my daughter,  knowing she wouldn't be drenched in a bunch of tedious pointless friggin "lore."

But no, friggin Peter Jackson and his friggin bucks demanded that it be a multi-movie epic drenched in irrelevant crap. So, never went. Don't plan to.

Remember, he wasn't originally supposed to direct.  It was supposed to be Guillermo del Toro, who was just going to do two movies.  But, for various reasons, del Toro quit and Jackson took over and they decided to stretch it into three movies.  It's also reported that the third movie was originally going to be a "bridge" to LOTR with all the extra stuff from the appendices, but then Jackson changed his mind and they put that stuff back into the other movies as well.

So, alas, we might have had something much better.  But I still think it will prove to be light years ahead of what Amazon does.

Two movies? Would that have been better? It's still one movie too many. The book stood on its own, for what 15 years before even LOTR was published, let alone the later hooh-ha. No "lore" needed. Alluded to, sure, but not needed. In fact, better for only being alluded to. In my opinion, a missed opportunity to make one great movie instead of three (or two) tedious ones.

  I agree, but I also think Amazon is about to do for those hobbit movies what JJ Abrams did for the lucas prequels, make them look better than they were by comparing them to hot trash.

Quote from: oggsmash on February 23, 2022, 08:19:24 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 23, 2022, 08:13:24 PM
This isn't even limited to non-political fiction. It's happening to progressive (for the time) fiction too. We're seeing a similar issue with the AMC Interview with the Vampire tv show adaptation. The plot has been largely rewritten aside from a couple of plot points. Why even buy the rights if the IP isn't actually being used?!

Louis was made black and changed to a 1900s brothel owner, because somehow keeping women in sex slavery is more palatable to modern audiences than a 1700s plantation owner. It's still human trafficking, fuck you misogynistic liberals!

Anyway, Louis being racebent to a child of the plantation actually sounds like a nifty way to add a minority POV without overturning the original story. Considering Rice's progressive political views before her death, I wouldn't be surprised if that would be one of the few changes she'd accept. Sympathetic white slave owners just won't fly in today's media environment.

But all the other changes are just arbitrary and unnecessary. Who is this for? It's definitely not for the fans.

  Wait a minute....Sympathetic white slave owners are out, but literal monsters that murder people and drain their blood are ok as sympathetic characters?  Don't get me wrong, I have no desire to rehab a slaver, but I just never got the whole vampire-hero fiction.  They are murdering blood suckers.   But the red flag is being a slave owner in the 1700's?  I should add, I do not care if they make Louis a child from the plantation, but he will still be a murderous blood sucker....right?

The alphabet community loves to identify with vampires for some reason. I think it has to do with society demonizing them for so long that they've internalized it and identify with literal cannibalistic supernatural monsters. Meanwhile, loads of straight women fantasize about being victimized by vampires, with the vampire bite being a psychosexual metaphor for sexual penetration. (The genre also attracts people who are just sick in the head and fantasize about being predators.)

One of the key points of the novel is that vampires were monsters. Louis hates his existence but is too cowardly to commit suicide. He admonishes the writer for wanting to be a vampire. The sequels forgot this part and really glamorized vampirism.

I don't pretend to understand why liberals think cannibals are more palatable than slavers

I think The Hobbit would have been hard to squeeze into one film because a lot does happen in it.  But possibly it could have worked as a 3 hour epic.  But I'm also in the group of people who thinks they cut way too much out of LOTR in the movies and added nothing of value.  Elves at Helm's Deep?  Ahhh, no.  I'd much prefer Bombadil or the Scouring of the Shire to that.

Quote from: Persimmon on February 23, 2022, 07:43:34 PM
The thing with the Hobbit films is that if you pared away the extra stuff that wasn't in the book you could have had two decent films.  And even with all their problems, you never get the impression that Jackson disrespected the lore.  He just got caught up in cramming everything he could in there, embellishing some stuff, getting enamored with CGI and chase scenes, and unnecessary "fan service."  So yeah, when you add all that up it got pretty bad, but most of the changes had at least some basis in the lore rather than being based on virtue signalling and tokenism.

I recently rewatched the Hobbit movies. My impression is that when considered on their own, they're occasionally inconsistent and goofy, but overall are decent B-grade fantasy movies. The problem is people had higher expectations based on the previous movies, and wanted greater fidelity to the source material.

I'm glad they skipped the Scouring of the Shire. The denouement in Return of the King was already way too long.

Quote from: Pat on February 23, 2022, 09:14:57 PM

Quote from: Persimmon on February 23, 2022, 07:43:34 PM
The thing with the Hobbit films is that if you pared away the extra stuff that wasn't in the book you could have had two decent films.  And even with all their problems, you never get the impression that Jackson disrespected the lore.  He just got caught up in cramming everything he could in there, embellishing some stuff, getting enamored with CGI and chase scenes, and unnecessary "fan service."  So yeah, when you add all that up it got pretty bad, but most of the changes had at least some basis in the lore rather than being based on virtue signalling and tokenism.

I recently rewatched the Hobbit movies. My impression is that when considered on their own, they're occasionally inconsistent and goofy, but overall are decent B-grade fantasy movies. The problem is people had higher expectations based on the previous movies, and wanted greater fidelity to the source material.

Jackson's female Dwarves on those movies are easily distinguished from the males. But they do have beards.

Quote from: Persimmon on February 23, 2022, 09:02:53 PM
I think The Hobbit would have been hard to squeeze into one film because a lot does happen in it.  But possibly it could have worked as a 3 hour epic.  But I'm also in the group of people who thinks they cut way too much out of LOTR in the movies and added nothing of value.  Elves at Helm's Deep?  Ahhh, no.  I'd much prefer Bombadil or the Scouring of the Shire to that.

Well, I have to admit I'm not a movie-maker. I imagine much comes down to cutting a lot but cutting it right. Maybe  you end up with something more than 2 hours, sure.  But I still think you can come close, and in any case, a self-contained piece, not a bloated multiple-episode lore-fest.

As for LOTR, unlike  the Hobbit, I have seen it...or parts of it. Years ago we watched it as El Señor de los Anillos, and it was great for helping my daughter get some confidence in her Spanish comprehension but I can't say it really kept my attention (or hers to be honest). It was okay, but not great, and it seemed to...drag. I've seen one or more episodes since in English, and...same impression.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 23, 2022, 08:55:57 PMI don't pretend to understand why liberals think cannibals are more palatable than slavers

Because racism/ sexism is the ultimate sin. Or just towing the party line (whatever it is at that moment) is the ultimate virtue, so even disagreeing with its assertions is the ultimate sin.

Captain Superchad could save the world every tuesday (for no reward), but say women can't drive and be treated with derision. But Lady Abortioneta could induce miscairages for fun, but have a gay friend and support him 'coming out' would be a quirky side character.

As for why they like monsters: Because much of their identity is based on making others feel uncofmrtable. Its entirely sadistic and desctructive, not-self validating.

If much of your identity is based on pissing people off, you will find yourself allying with monsters (because you are one).

Quote from: Persimmon on February 23, 2022, 09:02:53 PM
I think The Hobbit would have been hard to squeeze into one film because a lot does happen in it.  But possibly it could have worked as a 3 hour epic.  But I'm also in the group of people who thinks they cut way too much out of LOTR in the movies and added nothing of value.  Elves at Helm's Deep?  Ahhh, no.  I'd much prefer Bombadil or the Scouring of the Shire to that.

Rankin Bass did it with the animated Hobbit. It was a charming adaptation that felt like it was in the ballpark of Tolkien's writing.

Trying to turn The Hobbit into a LOTR prequel is where Jackson and whatever corporate suits were making the big decisions fell down.
It's not an epic prequel to LOTR, and trying to shoehorn it into one... well we all saw how that turned out.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 23, 2022, 10:33:13 PM

Quote from: Persimmon on February 23, 2022, 09:02:53 PM
I think The Hobbit would have been hard to squeeze into one film because a lot does happen in it.  But possibly it could have worked as a 3 hour epic.  But I'm also in the group of people who thinks they cut way too much out of LOTR in the movies and added nothing of value.  Elves at Helm's Deep?  Ahhh, no.  I'd much prefer Bombadil or the Scouring of the Shire to that.

Rankin Bass did it with the animated Hobbit. It was a charming adaptation that felt like it was in the ballpark of Tolkien's writing.

Trying to turn The Hobbit into a LOTR prequel is where Jackson and whatever corporate suits were making the big decisions fell down.
It's not an epic prequel to LOTR, and trying to shoehorn it into one... well we all saw how that turned out.

The cartoon is fine and I still own it, but I would still love a real adaptation of Tolkien that is totally faithful to the writing, even if it's just a story from The Silmarillion.  But I can't see that ever happening.  I can just read the stories again.  No way I'll tune in to Amazon's dumpster fire.

And for what it's worth, I prefer The Return of the King cartoon with those great songs like "Where there's a whip, there's a way...."

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 23, 2022, 08:13:24 PM
This isn't even limited to non-political fiction. It's happening to progressive (for the time) fiction too. We're seeing a similar issue with the AMC Interview with the Vampire tv show adaptation. The plot has been largely rewritten aside from a couple of plot points. Why even buy the rights if the IP isn't actually being used?!

Louis was made black and changed to a 1900s brothel owner, because somehow keeping women in sex slavery is more palatable to modern audiences than a 1700s plantation owner. It's still human trafficking, fuck you misogynistic liberals!

Anyway, Louis being racebent to a child of the plantation actually sounds like a nifty way to add a minority POV without overturning the original story. Considering Rice's progressive political views before her death, I wouldn't be surprised if that would be one of the few changes she'd accept. Sympathetic white slave owners just won't fly in today's media environment.

But all the other changes are just arbitrary and unnecessary. Who is this for? It's definitely not for the fans.

Creating a new brand is hard, takes lots of money and time to advertise and build, and could fail.  Stealing an old brand and wearing it like a mask is a lot cheaper.  Or at least that's how they see it.